Fraud vitiates all solemn acts; appointments obtained by misrepresentation are void ab initio and confer no legal rights, thus procedural protections do not apply.

JUDGMENT :

MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J.

1. Heard Mr. Prem Prakash Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Anoop Trivedi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Ashish Kumar Nagvanshi, learned counsel for the Secretary, U.P. Basic Education Board, Prayagraj, Mr. Sunil Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 & 3 and Mr. Hare Ram, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent.

2. The present writ petition challenges the legality and validity of the impugned order dated 04.07.2025 passed by respondent no. 2, whereby the petitioner's appointment has been declared void ab initio with effect from the date of appointment, i.e., 31.03.1998.

3. The brief facts relevant for the purpose of the present case are that:-

(i) Earlier, the petitioner was terminated from service on 20.12.2021, without initiating any disciplinary proceeding, pursuant to a complaint lodged by Smt. Snehlata. The petitioner challenged the said termination order before this Court by means of filing Writ-A No.1254 of 2022, wherein by an interim order dated 15.02.2022, relief was granted in favor of the petitioner. Subsequently, the writ petition was allowed by order dated 06.03.2024, with a direction for payment of regular salary.

(ii) Against the order dated 06.03.2024, the respondents filed Special Appeal Defective No. 233 of 2025 and Special Appeal No. 234 of 2025, which were disposed of vide order dated 24.04.2025. The Division Bench affirmed the order dated 06.03.2024 and gave a further direction that the employer would be entitled to conduct a fresh inquiry in accordance with law, and the current salary of the petitioner would also be paid. However, the question of arrears of salary from 2021 would abide by the fresh inquiry to be concluded by the employer.

(iii) Pursuant to the order dated 24.04.2025, a disciplinary proceeding was initiated on 07.05.2025, and a charge sheet dated 20.05.2025 was served upon the petitioner. However, the impugned order dated 04.07.2025, was passed without adhering to the procedure mandated by the Division Bench's order dated 24.04.2025. After passing the impugned order dated 04.07.2025, and during the pendency of the present writ petition, the respondents have filed a Civil Misc. Review Application (Defective) No. 81 of 2025 in Special Appeal Defective Nos.233/2025 and 234/2025, seeking to set aside the judgment and order dated 24.04.2025. The respondents have also filed a stay application to stay the effect and operation of the aforesaid order dated 24.04.2025, which is expected to be heard within a week.

(iv) If the stay application or the review petition is allowed, the entire disciplinary proceeding, including the impugned order dated 04.07.2025, passed by Respondent No. 2, would become infructuous. Consequently, this writ petition would also become infructuous, as the entire proceeding is based on the Division Bench's order.

(v) In the present case, the respondents allege that the petitioner obtained compassionate appointment through fraudulent means. Two FIRs have been lodged against the petitioner: One on 29.04.2022, under Section 420 IPC at Police Station Lalganj, District Mirzapur, and another on 20.05.2023, under Sections 420, 193, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, and Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, at Police Station Varanasi Sector (Vigilance Establishment). Both FIRs have been stayed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, vide orders dated 23.07.2024 (CRLP No. 12327 of 2024) and 19.03.2025 (CRLP No. 17783 of 2022), respectively.

(vi) The alleged forged documents submitted by the father of the petitioner, i.e. Legal Heir Certificate and Succession Certificate, were issued by the co